FTC and DOJ Revamp Merger Guidelines to Identify Illegal Transactions More Efficiently
In a update to US.m merger regulations, companies seeking to merge will now be required to provide more detailed information to federal regulators, according to new guidance from the Biden administration. This move is designed to help the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) more effectively identify potentially illegal mergers.
The changes stem from revisions to the premerger notification program under the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Act, which mandates companies to disclose information for acquisitions valued at over $119.5 million. According to a statement, these revisions will require companies to report overlapping business lines and disclose additional details about investors, giving regulators deeper insight into the nature of the proposed transactions.
Read all the changes here
The FTC announced the final rule on Thursday, highlighting that the additional data will enable the agency to better detect anti-competitive behavior early in the process. This, in turn, will allow the FTC and DOJ to focus resources on deals that raise the most serious antitrust concerns.
Per the statement
, the changes came after pushback from business groups, which raised concerns about the burden that the original proposal would impose on companies. In response, the final rule includes adjustments to reduce the regulatory burden while still enhancing the quality of information provided to the agencies.
“Access to better information at the beginning of the merger review process ensures that the antitrust agencies can devote our resources to the most important issues and reduces the burden on filers, third parties, and other market participants,” said Jonathan Kanter, Assistant Attorney General of the DOJ’s Antitrust Division.
The new guidelines are set to take effect 90 days after their publication in the Federal Register, giving companies time to adjust to the updated requirements.
Source: Justice Gov
Featured News
Electrolux Fined €44.5 Million in French Antitrust Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Indian Antitrust Body Raids Alcohol Giants Amid Price Collusion Probe
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Attorneys Seek $525 Million in Fees in NCAA Settlement Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Italy’s Competition Watchdog Ends Investigation into Booking.com
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Minnesota Judge Approves $2.4 Million Hormel Settlement in Antitrust Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – CRESSE Insights
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Effective Interoperability in Mobile Ecosystems: EU Competition Law Versus Regulation
Dec 19, 2024 by
Giuseppe Colangelo
The Use of Empirical Evidence in Antitrust: Trends, Challenges, and a Path Forward
Dec 19, 2024 by
Eliana Garces
Some Empirical Evidence on the Role of Presumptions and Evidentiary Standards on Antitrust (Under)Enforcement: Is the EC’s New Communication on Art.102 in the Right Direction?
Dec 19, 2024 by
Yannis Katsoulacos
The EC’s Draft Guidelines on the Application of Article 102 TFEU: An Economic Perspective
Dec 19, 2024 by
Benoit Durand